Monday, September 15, 2008

So while running yesterday, I got onto a train of thought about wondering whether good design needs to be the same or overlap with green design. My instinct is that they don't. But I'm having trouble finding examples of that, and I'm not sure if that's because the good design boom hit at pretty much the same time as the eco-design craze or if at this point in time, good design means green design.
I tend to think of good design as anything that communicates or interacts well with its audience. By "well" I mean products that seamlessly fit into their place and purpose. Objects that make tasks easier or simpler, things that really do make a difference in the way people live/use/work. These can be objects that you didn't have a need for beforehand, but now you can't think to do without. So they aren't necessary design, just good design. Or smart design. That may be a better phrase.
I tend to think that while smart design doesn't need to have overlap with green design, eco-awareness is so big right now that it tends to. Should it?
I've been reading Cradle to Cradle and so far it has left me frustrated and annoyed at it, and also just depressed. I've gotten through the first 3 chapters and I hope it gets better because right now it just makes me want to throw up my hands and say forget it. The message that came through to me is that adressing these issues in the framework that the world exists in right now is pretty much worthless. It's the equivalent of sticking a bandaid on a serious injury. The authors are advocating redoing the enitre framework. Maybe I'm too pessimistic, but I don't see that happening. So I'm left thinking that we're either tilting at windmills or screwed. Cheery.
The reason I tie this in is that they do seem to equate good/smart design with both social design and green design. This may be because of their architecture emphasis, but it leaves me questioning the future of our field (the larger object design field) as we make stuff. Most of which isn't needed, or necessary, or for a larger purpose than personal statement. So where do we fit in?

2 comments:

Anonymous said...

Did you read that essay on anti-design on spiked? I found it to be interesting if only because it takes pretty much the opposite positon of something like Cradle to Cradle. Basically it attacks the "do less harm" view of design that is currently in vogue and promotes something more like "do more good." Perhaps something in the middle is best.

Aristotle taught that virtue is the moderation between two extremes. which I find to be fairly accurate. This conflicts with the current dominant design view that the goal is to swing all the way to the extreme of zero waste and total reuse.

ohsherri said...

Personally, I just switched to World Changing. Although I still think Cradle to Cradle is less depressing then that movie we watched last semester...The End of Suburbia.

Aristotle also said man is a rational animal. Shows what he knows.
...and he was a drug dealer.